Support for death penalty (in principle) optional for Christians?

[Dee Dee Warren]

I have been coming to the conclusion that objection to the death penalty (in principle, not in specific practice by our various governments with whatever corruptions we might protest against) is not one of those optional beliefs for Christians. While truly, true and sincere Christians do oppose the death penalty for Christians, I believe it is sinful for them to do so (though done not in willful rebellion, thus again, I am not arguing salvation or anything of the sort).

Kaiser had a very good quote in his book Toward Old Testament Ethics (page 148):

The necessity for blood to be shed in death at the altar also reminds us that capital punishment is not an optional feature in a truly moral and ethically obedient society. As Rushdoony succintly states it, "To oppose capital punishment as prescribed by God's law is thus to oppose the cross of Christ and to deny the validity of the altar [DDW comment - I would not state it as strongly as Rushdoony]." In the case of first degree murder, Numbers 35:31 specifically requires that there be no remission from the penalty of death. If we are to prevent the very ground itself from vomiting forth its inhabitants in order to cleanse its defilement with innocent blood (Lev. 18:25), then there had better be a godly exercise of capital punishment against all murderers. To extend love or mercy in exchange for justice at this level is to despise both the image of God in the one who has been suddenly felled (Gen. 9:6) and, more importantly, to despise the very basis by which we received new life in Christ by the death of the Lamb of God.

Also I would add from page 91:

So sacred was life, and that all violent forms of snatching it away caused guilt to fall upon the land - whether in a manslaughter case or that of premeditated murder - and must lead to yielding up another life. In the case of premeditated murder, there was no[t] to be atonement, that is "substitue" or "ransom," for the life of the murderer (Num. 35:31). Genesis 9:6 would explian why this is so. This one captial offense required the death penalty, but was unlike the other crimes that also had a capital punishment which allowed substitution. It was because humans are made in the image of God that capital punishment for first degree murder became a perpetual obligation. To kill a person was tantamount to killing God in effigy. That murderer's life was owed to God; not to society, not to the grieving loved ones, and not even as a preventative measure for more crimes of a similar nature.

[Storico]

I want to address bits of pages 148 and 91 specifically:


It was because humans are made in the image of God that capital punishment for first degree murder became a perpetual obligation. To kill a person was tantamount to killing God in effigy.

and


To extend love or mercy in exchange for justice at this level is to despise both the image of God in the one who has been suddenly felled

-- How do you reconcile this sentiment with the FACT that even a human who has MURDERED another human being is made in the image of God? If we kill them, we're just as easily doing what the author states he has a problem with doing.

How about Genesis 4:8-16 ? Especially verse 15? How about Romans 12:19 ?

[Ecualegacy]

Keeping in mind that any Christian discussion of the death penalty must remember that God put governments on Earth to exercise His Justice. My personal opinion: God isn't going to "judge" a nation because it does or doesn't employ the death penalty. He will, however, let the natural consequences of each position follow. For example, nations that execute criminals will sometimes kill innocent people, but potentially deter others from terrible crimes.

[Gideon Brown]

DD, are you becoming a theonomist?

[Ecualegacy]

Holy Toledo Storico! I've found another theistic evolutionist!

BTW: who is DD?

Theonomist? I had to look that one up.

[Gideon Brown]

Holy Toledo Storico! I've found another theistic evolutionist!

There are quite a few around here.


BTW: who is DD?

They are all DD. :ddw:


Theonomist? I had to look that one up.

You'll like it here. :smile:

[Ecualegacy]

DD stands for...?

BTW: Any idea what do I have to do to get my avatar? I've posted 25 times. The list of avatars is a bunch of broken gif links.

[Gideon Brown]

DD stands for...?

Why, Dee Dee, of course! :smile:

[furay]

I have been coming to the conclusion that objection to the death penalty (in principle, not in specific practice by our various governments with whatever corruptions we might protest against) is not one of those optional beliefs for Christians. While truly, true and sincere Christians do oppose the death penalty for Christians, I believe it is sinful for them to do so (though done not in willful rebellion, thus again, I am not arguing salvation or anything of the sort).
I'm thankful that your conclusions are not binding on anyone else's conscience but yours.

[Ecualegacy]

I'm feeling a little podantic tonight. I'm going to be lost unless you elaborate.

[Kelp]

DD stands for...?

BTW: Any idea what do I have to do to get my avatar? I've posted 25 times. The list of avatars is a bunch of broken gif links.
Xena Bauer's usual name is Dee Dee Warren.

And, yes Tuck, she is gravitating in that dirrection.

[Gideon Brown]

I'm feeling a little podantic tonight. I'm going to be lost unless you elaborate.

:lol:

'Dee Dee Warren' is the original screen name of 'Xena Bauer'. :smile:

[Ecualegacy]

Thanks TuckEverlasting. I'm going back to bed for an hour. Thanks for the pearls too.

[Teallaura]

I have been coming to the conclusion that objection to the death penalty (in principle, not in specific practice by our various governments with whatever corruptions we might protest against) is not one of those optional beliefs for Christians. While truly, true and sincere Christians do oppose the death penalty for Christians, I believe it is sinful for them to do so (though done not in willful rebellion, thus again, I am not arguing salvation or anything of the sort).

...

This strikes me as legalistic almost to an extreme. How do you reconcile this with Jesus showing mercy to the adulteress? If you say "Well, He's God" then the same would hold true for OT application of the death penalty - people forget that at least initially the Israelites had a means of learning God's direct judgement. We don't got that so it's easily arguable that if God wanted the death penalty to be enacted now He'd have provided the means for Christian nations to do so without the possibility of error.

Arguing the death penalty is immoral is a fool's errand - the case can't be made Scripturally. But arguing that the mandate for same continues is equally fool hardy - Jesus gives us a pretty danged clear indication that it is not mandated any longer. The woman's guilt was not in question - Jesus Himself told her to sin no more. The prescribed - i.e. mandated - penalty was stoning. Yet Jesus intervenes in such a manner that no one there condemns her - and He Himself elects not to.

At the very least it is a cautionary tale for those who would pursue the letter of the law to make sure that they are first within the spirit and letter of the law that they are attempting to enforce. More likely, it's a demonstration that God means what He says - that He desires mercy more than sacrifice. If so, it completely undermines the idea that the mandate continues and is applied not only to Israel (which was a nation-state) but to Christians (who weren't).

Either Jesus is a special case here - which is not evident (He doesn't appeal to His own authority) and therefore smacks of special pleading or Jesus is sinning according to the thesis of the OP (which we know He did not do) or the mandate simply doesn't continue and the death penalty was merely a punishment and not a moral mandate to begin with.

If it's not a moral mandate then it can fall away with the ceremonial laws which were also made unnecessary by Christ's perfect sacrifice. Christ Himself fulfilled the need for blood atonement - arguing that that need continues is to deny His work on the Cross.

[timspong]

We are no longer under the mosaic law and like the mosaic law, criminal law and punishment only serves as a "crime barometer" and not a solution for it.

How did we become obedient in the new convenient? By being given love, forgiveness and mercy so that our lawfulness comes from a positive inherent motivation rather than a negative external motivation.

I firmly believe that all Christians should oppose the death penalty. Most of the NT is about love, forgiveness and mercy after all.

I can't think of anything more barbaric than killing someone who knows weeks in advance the exact moment of his death. As Christians everything we do should be in the name of Christ, so what kind of monster would inflict death on another human in the name of Christ? I thought we had got over the crusader mentality.

BTW where in the new covenant does it even allude to it being okay for a Christian to kill someone?

[Amazing Rando]

BTW where in the new covenant does it even allude to it being okay for a Christian to kill someone?

Something you may or may not be aware of Tim- the early church of the first three centuries was unequivocal in its opposition toward Christian participation in bloodshed (for any reason). I surveyed that question in my master's thesis and was very surprised as to the ethical clarity with which the early theologians, bishops, and apologists spoke on that issue.